Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

flow_man t1_ixcrgms wrote

So they are getting rid of clean hydro-electicity dams that power 70,000 homes and replacing it with what exactly? Because that type of power generation is a hell of a lot of power.

Like it sounds good if you spin it for the salmon but are we not trying to ween ourselves off oil and gas?

19

ribcracker t1_ixcxh43 wrote

It says those damns produce 2% of California's power IF they're operating at maximum efficiency. Yet they haven't been running at max because of already low water and other factors.

Seems like a big win overall and I'm sure California can make up the 2%.

67

EndlessHalftime t1_ixdbq6j wrote

Not 2% of California’s power. 2% of PacificCorp’s power, which is just one company.

33

flow_man t1_ixczfkc wrote

you say 2% like its a small number. This is 70,000 homes.... This is a horrible scale to use and is purposefully used to diminish its significance.

Another way to put it this would be this would power 30% of Wyoming. (70/240k homes). This is NOT a small amount of energy.

−12

onemany t1_ixd1l3t wrote

It's like ~170MW according to pacificorp. The dams were built in 1912 and 1960ish. Pacificorp added like 2200 MW of renewable energy since 1980 and has plans to generate 12k MW of renewable energy by 2040.

I'm not sure what's up with the pearl clutching.

50

flow_man t1_ixdtgw4 wrote

170MW is a crazy high amount of electricity lost to the grid. Who's pearl clutching? This is being replaced by a gas plant.

If your an environmentalist you just advocated for oil and gas over the best and most reliable form of renewable energy production.

−7

ydouaskbeta t1_ixdvplq wrote

Not very renewable if the water levels dropping friend

7

flow_man t1_ixe31zt wrote

Water levels dropping from drought does not make it a non-renewable or even account for the future. This is incredibly short term thinking. Hydro electric dams are thought of on a centennial scale not a year to year or even a decade.

If such reactionary measures were used consistently we would just ALWAYS have duel systems of renewables and non-renewables in ever case INSTEAD of being able to rely on hydro in a lot of cases solely because it is an incredible stable and long living power source.

0

onemany t1_ixdz5fr wrote

"Replacing the Klamath River dams' renewable energy won't be difficult, PacifiCorp officials say. The company has developed nearly 1,600 megawatts of new wind energy in the past five years."

https://www.heraldandnews.com/news/following-the-money-the-klamath-dams-are-a-massive-investment/article_dccd670a-5d21-11e1-bb18-0019bb2963f4.html

4

JohnSnowsPump t1_ixed63v wrote

It's like he thinks he is the first person to think of this.

The project has been planned for decades, alternatives have been considered and the benefits have been calculated.

3

DresdenPI t1_ixd1hf9 wrote

But the thing is that these dams aren't producing that much power anymore. They have the capacity to but the river is less powerful than it used to be. The ability of these dams to produce energy is curtailed regardless of what is done with them, may as well get rid of them to eliminate their effects on the river biome.

29

Super_Crisis_64 t1_ixd4ocg wrote

Those homes are connected to the full grid. They are not isolated to the dam. Those homes will not lose access to electricity

22

crakii105 t1_ixd0xe6 wrote

Wouldn't it be 12% of Wyoming?

2

flow_man t1_ixdf1s3 wrote

70/240 = 29.2%

−1

crakii105 t1_ixdfbtc wrote

But the population is 578k

−1

flow_man t1_ixdh9u1 wrote

and the average persons per home is 2.43.

This is not that hard. That equals 238k (240k)

0

crakii105 t1_ixdi5rw wrote

Oh yeah I didn't even think about house size vs population

1

Supermichael777 t1_ixdc8ij wrote

Wyoming is like measuring the expected weight of groceries against a family size bag of potato chips

2

slater_san t1_ixcuuk1 wrote

There's also wind and solar and lots of other power generation methods, but only so many salmon habitats.

27

CharonsLittleHelper t1_ixd1m2m wrote

Except that solar/wind aren't reliable. Hydro is.

This sort of thing shows that most hardcore environmentalists are Malthusians.

−23

BigLizardInBackyard t1_ixd3wcw wrote

My guy, this isn't being done for the environmentalists or the minorities it's being done to help the profit of the power company which is what we want really - this will be great for the bottom line - a huge cost avoidance and them liberals are paying for it too. Stop complaining or they'll figure it out.

"PacifiCorp would have had to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fish ladders, fish screens and other conservation upgrades under environmental regulations that were not in place when the aging dams were first built. But with the deal approved Thursday, the utility’s cost is capped at $200 million, with another $250 million from a California voter-approved water bond."

Edit, LOL: PacifiCorp, which operates the hydroelectric dams and is owned by billionaire Warren Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway,

12

msinkovich t1_ixdzgfe wrote

This is the explanation as I understood it..

1

slater_san t1_ixd2jv3 wrote

Reliable like a cloudy day compared to the constant of running water? Okay. Add in nuclear.

All you've proved is arguing in bad faith with no sources but 🤷‍♂️

4

CharonsLittleHelper t1_ixd2wxd wrote

A dam saves up water to be used as needed. That's why the hydroelectric plants are on dams instead of on the river itself like historical water wheels.

I don't need sources to point out super obvious things. Water is wet. The sky is up. Dams accumulate water.

−10

slater_san t1_ixd529i wrote

Okay watch this: solar farm for the sunny days, wind farm for the windy/cloudy days and nuclear plant to do those pesky overcast but not windy days.

Wind is windy, sun is sunny and I can play this game too!

Bonus: lots of job creation!

4

fireisveryfun t1_ixd6svx wrote

There are some other super obvious things, like how those dams interfere with salmon habitats and natural river flows. And how we have the technology to generate clean energy elsewhere. And that we have more than enough resources store water somewhere else.

4

PornoAlForno t1_ixdaihi wrote

Hydro isn't clean, it destroys rivers, that's the reason it's being replaced here.

11

bazooka_matt t1_ixddqc4 wrote

This is perpetuating the lie that dam owners and power companies keep shoving about these 100+ yearold dams, that providing value to humans at the expense of wildlife and endangered species is always worth it. It's not.

About 75 wind turbines at 42% generation capacity will power the same number of homes. Fairly small solar fields will also do the same. The other fact is that these dams will need full replacement soon regardless and I am also sick of my tax dollars paying for things like public utilities, where the profits go to a private person. We are a long long time being done with oil and gas, but we can do without these dams.

11

flow_man t1_ixdgttv wrote

Yep, I know exactly the article you looked at for this too, (https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power) So yes, we build 75 wind turbines at 262 million dollars and that is fine. BUT you also need to have a stable source added for when the wind does not blow. So you need a natural gas plan that can make this energy too. Costs about 400 million to make that plant and then maintenance for both of these systems each is more than the cost for the hydro dam but now you have two of them to deal with. See where this goes? There is a true cost to this decision both monetary wise and environmentally.

We can do a lot of COULDA's. But the fact is this. A clean hydroelectric dam is not being upgraded but rather demolished for a gas electric plant and Environmentalists here seem to be in full support. Sounds like a lot of not in my backyard environmentalism.

2

bazooka_matt t1_ixdiro6 wrote

Sorry bud, I just can't support keeping dams at the expense of wildlife. Also $262M is nothing compared to the cost of renovation and rebuild of these "clean dams".

I get what you're saying about when the wind doesn't blow. A hybrid system is a a must. Also what's going to happen when there's not enough water to turn the turbines in these dams anyway?

7

flow_man t1_ixdlqg3 wrote

262m upfront for only the wind power. You need a dual system with wind because it doesn't blow all the time nor does it meet the hyperbolic curve of power that is needed in a day. you need the 400m gas plant as well and the maintenance of both of these systems is individually is more than the hydro dam. nonetheless combined. Passing the buck onto the future.

The neat part of a damn is the power is there for you whenever you want it. Need more power in the evening, let more water through.

−1

eggnogwithextranog t1_ixdnu26 wrote

Dams require upkeep as well, you seem to be ignoring that. More importantly, how many billions of dollars in ecosystem services have been lost in the decades that the dams have been up? If you're really worried about clean, consistent energy output, you would be a proponent of nuclear over hydroelectric. Or you'd be advocating for increased funding into innovation in large scale battery storage technology so we can store extra energy generated by wind and solar in times of high production. Why argue for dams?

4

flow_man t1_ixdqbp9 wrote

>both of these systems is individually is more than the hydro dam

This is not ignoring. This is directly relating them and saying one is more than the other.

Nuclear power is GREAT. It is the one non oil and gas power source which can generate the power in great supply and usability that rivals Hydro. There is no need to be a proponent of one over the other. They BOTH are the best ways to generate cleaner energy. The funny thing about all large scale battery storage solutions currently is they all make a DAM and pump water to the top of it. Wind is at the ebb and flow of the wind, solar produces during the day when power is not needed as much as it is in the Evening.

1

dramaking37 t1_ixcvzhq wrote

I think we are trying to move away from oil and gas while also maintaining or increasing our food supply.

8

Skill3rwhale t1_ixde8gz wrote

The rivers have not been yielding good results with electricity generation for years.

There has also been a HUGE amount of support for this among the Oregonians, me included.

7

Substantial-Emu-9900 t1_ixft44i wrote

Not everything is 1:1.

1

flow_man t1_ixh37ql wrote

When it comes to a power grid, sadly it is.

If a power grid goes below a certain threshold for even as long as 10 minutes. It fails. You do NOT want to have to endure a failed power grid.

1

ABoxACardboardBox t1_ixd46bi wrote

With "clean coal" and natural gas plants. They're also removing their nuclear plants within 5 years.

−2